The Documentary Hypothesis explained: Wellhausen and the formation of the Pentateuch 

Awesome work, earnd a subscription today. You should do a longer video for each of the theorized sources and get into what themes make them specific. God bless you !

Very helpful video also: Evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis in one minute by Kipp Davis

Thanks, I head this mentioned in passing and had no idea what they were talking about. This cleared it up nicely. Good clear content, not dry.

I wished u did more videos !!

Thank you for explaining well

Well done my friend. Great presentation with very little bias and very understandable material.

Great learning source thank you 😎

This was great work and perfectly explained! This will help me so much in class. Thank you!

Outstanding explanation - thank you.

BEAUTIFIULLY SAID

There is a thing you must take in account the contradictions in the repetitions. See the history of Joseph, the flood accounts , the two creation accounts

WETHER FACTUAL OR NOT I LOVE YOUR EXPLANATION. I WILL DEFINITELY BE KEEPING IN TOUCH.

Wow, the conclusion really shocked me. Agsin wow.

What an amazing video. Thank you.

Well done

In regards to its dating, the biggest issue I questioned is the Hebrew script the entire Tanakh has been preserved in. It's not written in the Paleo-Hebrew script form, but rather it's a Hebrew-transliterated text that made use of the Assyro-Babylonian square-letter script that we commonly today associate as the Hebrew Alef-Bet. This alphabet system had to have been adopted at some point in the history, which would date the writings to the post-exilic period. With the scribal tradition, as alluded to in Tanakh, that reorganized its focus from either kingly, priestly, or prophetic oral traditions to now a written and recorded authority of scribes and their teachers of the Law, I see the Torah as more or less a work of Ezra's pen, rather than Moses'. It should be noted that the second temple period was the beginning of Judea, a province of the Persian Empire. (There no longer was a northern kingdom of Israel or a southern kingdom of Judah.) In other words, the second temple period was not a monarchy, but rather a governed province of the greater Persian Empire. No more kings or prophets in the second temple period, but only Levis (priestly factions), Persian-approved governors, and scribes. From the second temple period is when I believe the Tanakh began to be written.

What a great explanation, thank you!!!

Great explanation.

Now that archeology has buried the Exodus/Moses that would leave Moses out of writing anything. Project Tabs has extracted the J P E D stories from the Torah. Many are complete and stand on their own.

The reason this matters to me is because I’m trying to understand what truly came from God and what didn’t. In Exodus when it Moses supposedly teaches about how men can have a slave wife and then marry another wife but he still needs to give her food and sexual intimacy it disturbs me and doesn’t seem consistent with God’s nature. It seems like prideful greedy men making laws and attributing them to God. This has major consequences because many Christians say that the Bible is God breathed. This would lead one to believe that the Bible reflects perfectly God’s mind and it’s ok to have more than one wife and it’s ok to treat women as nothing and that we need a man as a go between between us and God even though that contradicts what is taught elsewhere in the Bible. So much hinges on whether this book is truly God’s mind to the people or if it’s man putting words in God’s mouth. It really matters. I am much more inclined to believe the New Testament is from God rather than the Old. Jesus seems to encompass what I’ve seen if God in my life rather than the Old Testament.

Interesting, except for the end, you just stopped at the 1970, the documentary hypothesis is still relevant, even tho the original version of it is not accepted anymore, many different amended versions of the hypothesis exist Also the consensus among scholars is that the Torah is not historical, and had many different authors, that is the overwhelming consensus, we know that with high level of certainty But then it’s hard to know what exactly happened, we have no originals, hundreds to thousands of years in the dark, no copies whatsoever, so of course it’s almost impossible to know what happened, and really hard to evaluate our level of certainty ON THE DETAILS But there was more than one author, and it’s not historical, it doesn’t fit at all with everything we know about this time period

I thought your explanation of Wellhausen and the hypothesis was well done and very fair handed. However, there were certain thing you also said that sounded like you were still trying to rescue the bible as a literal instrument of god. How would an all powerful god write such a text, Wellhausen or not, which still remains with so many flaws?

Why do all you documentary guys sound the same?

IMHO this was a good video but when it came to the end your personal opinion was totally off. The consensus today is there is likely no Moses at all and the original DH is flawed and incomplete. So I have to recommend to you and those who watched this two books that will fill in the modern scholarship on this issue. _Source Criticism_ by Joel S Baden NEW _The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis_ by Joel S. Baden

I find it quite uncritical to purport a contradiction and/or a disparate account between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2; it’s just so highly speculative and unfounded. (The details present don’t provide the necessary information to be able to derive this) 1. Part of the claim is allegedly based on the use of the Tetragrammaton in Genesis 2 as opposed to the name Elohim that was uniquely used in Genesis 1. Actually, Genesis 2 does NOT use the Tetragrammaton in contrast to Elohim, it actually uses both names! (Yes, I’m fluent in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic) By associating both names (as opposed to one) to the creator God, on the contrary, it’s evidence that there might be more than one manner to communicate certain attributes. (The Tetragrammaton is etymologically related to the root היה or “being”, to emphasize the essence of all there is/being; the name Elohim has its roots in איל or characterizing strength, to emphasize the sheer power involved in creation ex nihilo. Why not use both names initially ? The answer is context. Genesis 1 speaks of raw creation, merely a revelation that includes all principal parts of creation; He created this, then this, and also this. Genesis 2 is clearly providing background and specific details, particularly centered around the creation of Man, in other words, fine details are being provided about the “being” that is man, hence, the Tetragrammaton which is at the root of “being” is also used. This is justified further when it’s states, “And the Lord (Tetragrammaton) God (Elohim) formed man…” (Genesis 2:7), emphasizing both names. One provides creative power, the other provides “la raison d’être(being)”, for as the verse states, “…plants had not grown yet, for there was no rain, and why was there no rain? Because man was not present yet” (paraphrase of Genesis 2:5), in other words the world’s “being” is contingent upon Adam’s “being” which is provided by the Tetragrammaton of “being”.) 2. Genesis 2 ostensibly begins by making it clear that what I’m about to recount to you is, “״אֵ֣לֶּה תֽוֹלְד֧וֹת הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִ֣בָּֽרְאָ֑ם “These are the toldot of heavens and earth when they were created”, the word toldot literally means “that which is derived from”; In this context it means the “derivatives” and particulars of creation. As we will see, however, these details are focused entirely upon “man”. Thus, this introductory statement grants the underpinning reason and context, namely, that we are about to discuss the essence of creation, a different perspective from Genesis 1. (Thus, even if one wants to speculatively claim that Genesis 2 was patched on later, he must deal with how the writers intelligibly preceded him with this opening statement that provides a smooth transition from genesis 1 to genesis 2) 3. The claim that vegetation preceded man in genesis 1, yet, from genesis 2 we see the opposite to be true, can also be dealt with. For Genesis 2 specifies, “And every plant of the field before it was ON THE EARTH, and every herb of the field before it GREW; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to work the ground.(Genesis 2:5) Genesis 2 specifies that the actual growth and production of vegetation necessitated man, albeit that the vegetation was present and created and waiting for Adam. To emphasize this the verb צמיחה/growth is not used in Genesis 1 only in Genesis 2. 4. The claim that animals seemed to have been created after man in Genesis 2, while the opposite is true in Genesis 1, is also not a valid argument. The answer is context. There is every reason to translate Genesis 2:19 in the past indicative tense, as “And God had already created every beast of the field, and every bird of the air…” Why ? Context. The verse specifies that the “creation of these beasts” is being mentioned here not for its own purpose, rather, it’s connected to Adam “naming every beast by name”, thus it was necessary to mention their presence and creation. This does not imply, however, that the order or creation is being conveyed, rather, since their presence is only known to us via their creation, their creation is mentioned once again and tied to the context. Further proof: As we said, Genesis 2:4: makes it lucidly clear that we are discussing particulars that were not previously discussed, thus, being that chronological order was already established in Genesis 1, there would be no reason and it would be utterly superfluous to mention chronology once again, perforce the intent is to reveal something unrelated to chronology. Moreover, just as Genesis 2:5 established that the growth of vegetation was contingent upon man, so, too, does verse 19 mean to convey that the “beasts” are entirely contingent upon man, regardless of the chronology that was already established in Genesis 1. There are too many details to discuss, nevertheless, this is the main idea. Namely, that Genesis 2 establishes a more detailed perspective regarding Man.

The Bible isn’t true, lol. I’m Jewish and don’t believe the earth is flat, that animals can talk (well parrots but they aren’t mentioned in my ancestor’s books)

or Moses wrote the Torah...much less speculative. It is completely reasonable to believe that Moses wrote everything except where Joshua filled in the details after him or contextualized the regions he mentions for the newest generations.

So many problems. The Old Testament is compiled around 500BC about 1000 years after Moses. The bible only got canonised 325 years after Jesus into books that your don’t know the authors but just to give it credibility the books were named after the disciples. That is after chucking aside so many other gospels that don’t agree with the councils views. The Quran is free from all these issues and corrects all the mistakes and falsehood reported in the old scripture. In fact, it is written down by those known to the prophet Muhammad PBUH a few years after his death by those who learned it from him and validated by some many others that learnt it from the prophet. So it is obviously the word of God revealed to the prophet and penned down in its original language and form. There are so many miracles in the Quran that you know that it is beyond the ability of Muhammad PBUH, an unlettered illiterate prophet from the lineage of Ismail. If only you open your eyes

Good explanation of a crackpot theory.

So little evidence for anything in the Bible, yet people believe it.

All wrong . There is one author God ( Holy Spirit) and the humans were the writers . This devaules that scripture is God’s Holy Word . 2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Jesus was a Priest - Thank you for calling Jesus boring and the Priests who are In Person Christi boring.. By your words you will be justified and by your words (PUBLICLY I might add.. wow recklessness or excessive courage?? ) you will be condemned. To give you a 101 in Biblical studies: 1) The Priests organization system began in reality in the time of the Kingdom (David- Solomon… the old texts reflect an archaic tradition of priesthood without knowing exactly how was it organized) 2) I can’t see where in Ezekiel you make reference to the Torah or the 5 books!! The Scroll that he had to swallow is most likely a primitive form of the Torah, but not necessarily what will be gathered in 5 books, After the Exile!! 3) The Deuteronomy could not speak about Jerusalem and the Temple…It is reporting (in new forms and speeches) the period of the Journey in the desert! 4) YES, we certainly make inter-relations between Genesis and other ancient traditions of the creation story.

You start off the video assuming the Bible is true. What if the authors were people like you? People who assuming the stories they like are true. And the ones they don't aren't. And harmonize the ones that are different but similar.

Thank you for calling priests boring.. Saint Padre Pio was a Priest, pretty “boring” as he was.. Saint John Vianney was a Priest.. absolutely boring.. right? Saint Iganitus Loyola was a priest.. super boring to the critics of academia? Saint John Bosco was a Priest.. inspiring youth is pretty boring.. Don’t get me started on the boring Martyr priests.. By your words you will be justified..

This is an interesting presentation, but why do you dumb it down ? eg 4:20 "Only interesting to priests, because priests are boring" No. It empowers the priesthood. That "stuff" justifies the priesthood : It says that the ceremonies are required by God. Trivializing the bible and dumbing it down is a form of propaganda. It is like the Catholic Catechism : the congregation are told to recite and stop thinking. "P" is the notation used because the Priesthood founded their authority on those segments.